Is it just a coinscidence that many of our “terrorist” events have happened on the same days that government was performing training exercises for the same disasters? Are terrorist really so stupid that they are now planning their deviant acts around the calendars of government agencies training exercises for the very event they are training for?

“The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out. -Captain Eric H. May, former U.S. Army military intelligence officer

[1994] Estonia: Ship Estonia is sank on first day of a “10-day NATO naval exercise called Cooperative Venture 94, in which more than fifteen ships and “a number of maritime aircraft” were prepared to conduct ‘humanitarian and search and rescue operations’ in nearby waters.” While this was not considered a terroist attack, it was suspected that there was illegal arms trading with Estonia as the transporter and NATO was possibly escorting them). The Estonia sunk on the same day and the same waters where NATO was training on how to deal with a severely stressed ship. (Debatt Sanningssokande Mediakritik)

[2001] 9/11: National Reconnaissance Office (under the DHS and and CIA) had “planned a simulated exercise with a mock ‘plane-into-building’ crash on the morning of 9/11.” I believe this meeting was being held in NYC, and was “canceled” when it happened for real. NORAD also trained with emergency response of planes flying into prominent buildings in America. The planes hit the WTC and the Pentagon on the same day they planned a mock training exercise on how to deal with such an event. (Aviation Week)(Boston.com)

[2005] London: Visor Consultants’ Peter Power, was “running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations.” The company turned out to be Reed Elsevier, which has been accused of being very politically connected. Visor Consultants and Reed Elsevier chose eight possible locations to drill at, to which three of them were actually chosen by the terrorist on the same day as the drill was to take place. (Channel 4)

[2011] Olso, Norway: Norwegian Police perform drill in handling a bomb in an official building. Bomb attributed to Anders Behring Breivik went off only 26 minutes after the anti-terror drill finished and a few blocks away. Breivik admitted to having carried out the actions he was accused of, but denied criminal guilt and claimed the defence of necessity. The training happened within 48 hours of the bombing. (The Local, Norway)

[2012] Aurora, CO: “Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine is in the middle of holding specialized classes in disaster life support for 150 second-year medical students. Along with response to natural disasters like hurricanes and floods and terrorist attacks, one of the scenarios being used to train the students is how to respond if a shooter fires at people in a movie theater and also uses a bomb in the attack.” The movie-theater shooting occured the same day. (Denver Post)

[2012] Newtown: Connecticut Department of emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) and Division of Emergency Management & Homeland Security (DEMHS) offer a FEMA/DHS drill in Bridgeport, CT (32 min away) from Sandy Hook called “Planning for the Needs of Children in Disasters” (FEMA L-366).

[2013] Boston: Boston Bomb Squad training. UM Coach, Ali Stevenson stated, “They kept making announcements to the participants do not worry, it’s just a training exercise.” The bombing happened on the same day. (GR)

Why have so many tragic events happened while training for the very event that occured?

I genuinely think that people need to examine the facts and the relativity to what is currently going on in the world. Many people believe that the U.S. government is encroaching on our right to own firearms. I do believe that there are powers to be that do indeed want this. However, they know that this is an uphill battle because the 2nd Amendment is a pretty direct piece of law. Furthermore, courts across America including the Supreme Court have ruled that guns are individual rights, they have even explicitly stated that the AR-15 is a viable firearm to be used for defense.

So because it is an uphill battle the politicians know that they must take back doors to curb firearms in America. So instead of amending the Constitution, they simply limit the effectiveness of a firearm by reducing the pool of weapons, restrict the people allowed to own firearms, restrict trade, and make ammunition scarce.

President Obama has already signed back-door Executive Orders to limit some of these things. He wants to create a better database to limit the firearms to the mentally unstable. While this sounds like a noble gesture, I question it’s effect. The Department of Homeland Security has put out at least two memos stating that military veterans are high on the suspect list for domestic terrorism. They have also said that people who strongly disagree with the government or have bought bulk ammunition are also high on the list of possible suspects of domestic terrorism. To me if you already have those definitions all it takes is a hop and a skip for you to say “hey, you can’t buy this gun until you go get a health check” to which I go in and am validated to be sane due to my military experience and my feelings of suspicion against my government. It is real easy for this paper-jockey to deem me unstable and thus take away my right to own a firearm. If they want to take away my right then do it the right way – do it in court.

They also want to limit the option of a person-to-person sale. This also seems problematic to me because this too is a hop and skip away from them controlling who gets what. Let’s say that I want to pass a firearm down to my son. With this rule I may be banned from passing a firearm down to which the firearm would die with me and then be turned over to the state (probably to be destroyed).

What is most concerning to me, and anyone that has recently been to a place that sells ammunition will also know this, that ammunition is scarce. I never thought I’d see it, but even 22LR is nowhere to be found. If one cannot obtain ammunition for their firearm then their firearm is useless and irrelevant. What if the U.S. government knows they cannot take the guns so they are simply taking the ammunition in a perfectly legal way by simply buying the ammunition before we can?

The way the market works is that of supply and demand. If one buys then that item is removed from the shelf and nobody else can buy it. In this case the Department of Homeland Security is buying a lot of ammunition right off the top so that it never hits the shelf for normal citizens to purchase. The ammunition manufacturers more than likely are just going to fulfil orders to whoever puts up the most money, which in this case is the government because their order is massive. The DHS has purchased 1.6 billion rounds in the last year. Other government agencies also have purchased ammunition as well, albeit not as much. An additional 21.6 million rounds have also recently been requested.

As InfoWars points out here, “To put that in perspective, during the height of active battle operations in Iraq, US soldiers used 5.5 million rounds of ammunition a month. Extrapolating the figures, the DHS has purchased enough bullets over the last 10 months to wage a full scale war for almost 30 years.” Another way to look at these figures is that the Iraq war lasted from March 2003 until December 2011, which is 105 months. If each month the U.S. military used 5.5million rounds of ammunition then that means that over the 8 years and 9 months we used 577.5 million (0.577 billion) rounds. To use the DHS’ order of 1.6billon we’d have to have 3 Iraq wars going on. Sinking in yet?

And what is the DHS’ official reasoning for the influx of the bulk ammo? Two reasons it seems – (1) training and (2) they are expecting an ‘influx’ of immigrants.

I call bullshit on that for two reasons. First off much of the 1.6 billion rounds is hollow-point. For the most part everyone trains with ball ammo, not hollow-point. Hollow-point is used against soft targets because they expand and cause more carnal damage. Secondly, most training happens a few times a year. There is no way that they need that much ammunition to train with.

So I can only figure two things as to why they would purchase that much ammo. (1) The agency created to deal with threats within the borders is preparing for some sort of catalyclsmic event where they need to have plenty of ammunition for crowd control – they will use it against it’s own citizens. Or (2) they are buying ammunition to dry up the supply so that we cannot purchase the ammunition and thus make our firearms useless. Or (3) they are purchasing bulk ammo to accomplish both goals listed above.

Second LAPD manifesto released in support of Christopher Dorner – minus the killing.

My Former LAPD Officer Joe Jones MANIFESTO…

I know most of you who personally who me are in disbelief of the partial story I will tell today. A story that has been suppressed for about 18 years, But lives strong everyday of my life.

I without hesitation would like to send my condolences to the Victims who were lost and their families during this tragic situation. I would also like to send mycondolences and well wishes to the many former and current Officers, as well as Citizen’s and their families who lost the lives and souls of loved one’s to the injustices of Police Corruption, Scandal, Lies, Deception and Brutality.

Unlike Former Officer Dorner, I fear dying; But I also fear living in a society where Innocent people are dying for no reason. A society where pain so great can be afflicted to people who have to desire to live right and treat people right and then be punished for doing right.

They say we all look alike. In very few cases this of course is true. But in most cases it is not. I feel a resemblance to Dorner, (See Photos) However several people who have no resemblance to Dorner have been shot due to the fear of what is taking place. I DO NOT WANT TO BE SHOT FOR CRIMES I DID NOT COMMIT!. Neither does anyone else.

To preface my story I will say this: Just like former Officer Christopher Dorner I used to smile a lot. I loved everyone. I was voted Friendliest Senior of my Sr. Class in High School. I always believed in the system and never got into any trouble. I loved hard and gave to all I could. After Joining the LAPD in 1989 I quickly found out that the world and society had major flaws. I had flaws as well for ever believing that our system of government was obligated to do the right thing. his is what I believed as a young Officer. Without going into major detail, I need you to first assume that I would not surface 16 years later with lies about a situation that has me with PTSD to this very day. The pain forces me to speak as I have yet to shake the Ill’s of my experience as an LAPD Officer. Of course I have moved on physically. But mentally and emotionally I still live with flaws.

I can’t go into re-living the emotions of what I went through so I will say this. I had my home viciously attacked by a gunman with my family and myself inside the house. No arrests were made and my family and I Received very little support. I had my Civil Rights violated on several occasions. I was falsely arrested at gunpoint by the Sheriffs as an Officer who ID’d himself and was conspired against by both LAPD and the Sheriffs when my Civil case went to Trial. I was falsely accused on more than one occasion and simply placed in a position that the trust was so compromised that I could no longer wear the Uniform. Also know there were many more episodes. All of these issues are well documented and I present them not to be a Whistle blower, However to hope that one would not assume that all of what is being said is Lies as presented by Dorner. I don’t know him, But I know me. I will say from my experience, If a person knows they were wrong it is easier to move on without anger. Seems that Dorner obviously could not move on… Could I just be content and move on with my life and not say anything? Yes…Then I would feel that I for once had my chance to speak on something that hurts me to this day and I did nothing to arouse thought or provoke reform. This is what I hope comes from this whole situation:

1. Families that lost someone to this tragedy find the peace that only God can give at this terrible time.

2. Citizens of Los Angeles be mindful of this fearful time to be an Officer and comply vigorously so that you are not the victim of an Officer on high alert.

3. Government and Politicians please be diligent in the responsibility of creating Laws that protect those who could be the victim of a conspiracy. Never allow the door to be shut on the Truth.

4. Honest and Fair LAPD & All Agencies: Keep doing what you are doing to protect citizens and be safe while you are doing so. We need you and I would hope that you do not allow the Bureaucratic drama and Stress to kill your morale as I know it can.

5. Unethical LAPD & all Agencies: Whatever is was that lead you down this path, Pray to somebody’s God to forgive you and begin to remove unethical methods to your policing style. Always think what if it were you, How would you feel?..How would you like if you were falsely accused and your life, lively-hood and career was taken from you? How would you like if someone was beating on you just because they felt they could get away with it? You are no better the criminals you took and oath to arrest when you do what you do!

6. Chistopher Dorner. The 1st thing I would say to him is, I feel your pains!…But you are going about this the wrong way. To take innocent lives could never be the answer to anything. I say this as a Man who experienced the same pain, betrayal, anger, suffering, litigation and agony that you did in many ways, Only I didn’t get Fired. I just choose to go a different route. My heart still suffered that same shock, I was still left to try and put the pieces back together. The disbelief that people could conspire and cause you to loose something you loved so dearly was still there. I lost my Career, I lost my Family, I lost my Dignity, I lost my Trust…But I am here now to hopefully one day see change…Bro, Don’t kill anymore Innocent people. Your point has been made. Clearly. They know you mean business, The whole world knows. Refrain from any further wrong doing and do what you must to salvage your Soul. Whatever that means to you. Just remember that God is a forgiving God.

In conclusion I say to people who knew none of this about me that one day I will have to reflect on when was the time to speak. When I see the potential for innocent lives to be lost…The time is Now!…JJ

The idea that everyone is inocent until proven guilty – also referred to as Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat – has been a staple of civilized law for centuries. I grew up with this idea that if accused of anything that I would have the chance of rebuttal. I grew up with the notion that in America I couldn’t be taken away, thrown in a cell, and held indefinitely unless someone had proven that I had done something worthy of such treatment.

Things have apparently changed in today’s world in this regard. Today as Americans we are filled with fear of the unknown. We seem far removed from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s words which were later echoed by John F. Kennedy where they said, the “only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Today we fear something on every corner – we fear that a terrorist is standing in line with us to blow up a plane, we fear that we will die of some new super-flu, we fear that Iran will bomb us tomorrow, and we fear that our neighbor will use their AR-15 to shoot down our children. Many of these things are largely unfounded – very few planes have been hijacked and used as weapons in the history of humanity, very few people die from some contagious virus, nobody has indefinitely proven that Iran is building a bomb, and you’re more likely to die from a kitchen knife or a hammer than an AR-15.

But it is fear that motivates us to do things or to give up things we normally wouldn’t do with logic and reason. Fear is irrational and our government knows this – Rahm Emanuel infamously said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” In other words, when people are confused and cowering in fear, the impossible then becomes possible.

I am specifically speaking today about the idea of what we allow when we fear uncertainty. Nobody wants to be killed by a terrorist so to combat this fear we allow our government to handle the issue. However, when we allow the government to handle the issue we allow them to impede on us and our freedoms. In recent history our American government has passed legislation, implemented agency policy changes, or signed Executive Orders to seek out Americans they deem unsavory and assasinate them… without trial… or without any definitive proof that they have actually done anything other than talk bad about America or hang out with bad people who don’t like America.

When will Americans find such an action intolerable? For now the policy is distant – we are killing American citizens in other countries. Our news barely reports on it and when they do they are sure to invoke two American fears – that they are an Islamic and that they are a terrorist. In doing so, we disregard teh fact that the person was just as we are – an American citizen who is supposedly protected under law practice such as due process, burden of proof, and starting an investigation with a valid probable cause. This is what we citizens here are afforded here in Arizona, Ohio, and the rest of the United States so why isn’t this courtesy also afforded to citizens overseas?

I believe this is a very slippery slope and especially true when you consider how many times the government has accidentially killed the wrong person (for example, there was no wrongdoing found at Ruby Ridge but that didn’t stop them from shooting half a family). I am sure that Americans won’t care about this policy until they are the ones being detained or killed. Sounds like something Martin-Niemöller wrote about with Nazi Germany.

Of the scores of people dubbed terrorists and taken out by American military drone strikes, three men — all killed in the fall of 2011 — were U.S. citizens.

And their lives illustrate the complexity of the issue, recently brought to light amid a newly discovered government memo that provides the legal reasoning behind drone strikes on Americans.

Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were killed by a missile strike in Yemen on Sept. 30, 2011, while al-Awlaki’s son, Abdulrahman, was killed in the country just weeks later.

Since the attacks, family members have called the deaths unjust and sued the U.S. government, calling the killings unconstitutional.

Anwar al-Awlaki, born in New Mexico, became well known for his fiery anti-American sermons posted throughout the Internet.

Samir Khan, who’d lived in both New York and Charlotte, N.C., produced a magazine called “Inspire” that became known for its extreme jihadist views.

But the most controversial drone strike took place on Oct. 14, 2011, when 16-year-old Abdulrahman was killed by U.S. forces.

Family of the Denver-born teenager say he had no ties to terrorist organizations and was unjustly targeted because of his father.

Nassar al-Awlaki, grandfather of Abdulrahman and father to Anwar, said he tried to protect his grandson as Anwar al-Awlaki’s profile grew.

In December, Nassar al-Awlaki told CNN, “In Anwar it was expected because he was under targeted killing, but how in the world they will go and kill Abdulrahman. Small boy, U.S. citizen from Denver, Colorado.”

Nassar al-Awlaki said his grandson snuck out of their Yemen home one night, leaving a note for his mother saying he would return in a few days. The boy never returned, killed instead while eating at an outdoor restaurant.

“Since the issue regarding Anwar came, I tried to insulate the family of Anwar from everything, regarding this matter,” Nassar al-Awlaki told CNN. “I took care of him, and suddenly after 2 year absence from his father, he decided to go to our government in Yemen to seek information from his father. That was the only reason he went, and he did not tell us.”

The Obama administration has remained mostly mum regarding Abdulrahman’s death, and at times has struggled to explain it.

“I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well-being of their children,” former White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs said to a gaggle of reporters in October. “I don’t think becoming an al-Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.”

During his presidential campaign, Republican Rep. Ron Paul criticized the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, saying: “Al-Awlaki was born here, he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. … But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it’s sad.”

Anwar al-Awlaki’s ties to the United States go back to his father Nassar, who came to the country to earn a master’s degree. His son was born in New Mexico, and though the family returned to Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki came back to the U.S. for college, eventually becoming an iman.

Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, he became a popular spokesman for moderate Islam, and was often used to juxtapose perceptions that Islam is a religion that spreads hate. But less than a decade later, he was hiding in Yemen as a name on the CIA’s kill list.

“I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim,” he said in an audio message in March 2010.

Conversely, Khan was never interested in the peaceful side of Islam. The New York Times reports that as a teen, Khan’s attraction grew exponentially to militant sites on the Internet after 9/11. Parental concerns and intervention from community leaders proved unsuccessful. Khan was 25 when he died in Yemen.

In July 2012, Samir Khan’s mother, Sarah, joined Nassar al-Awlaki in a lawsuit against four senior national security officials.

“I don’t really necessarily agree with some of the things Anwar said against the United States, but does that mean they should kill him outside the law?” asked Nassar al-Awlaki.

Recently there have been reports from urban America that the military is doing drills within the city – some reportedly using live-fire and helicopters while others invading schools so that children “know what gun fire sounds like.”

This alarms me. I know the official answer is probably something like “we are training for an overseas operation” but I just don’t buy it. I was in the Army and I know that the Army has a whole school for training how to jump out of a helicopter for an operation – it is called Air Assault School. If the Army already has such schools then it seems logical to believe that they don’t need to train in the city where we all live. After all, isn’t the military supposed to mainly fight foreign enemies?

But let’s just say that they don’t have a school and they must train in the city where we live, shouldn’t we be notified that soldiers will be roaming the streets or flying helicopters past our bedrooms and office cubicles? There is even evidence that in Houston the helicopters were live-firing while flying through the city.

As far as I’m concerned this is wrong. All power in America is vested in the people and if the people don’t posess that right then they cannot cede that power to the government to handle. A government that creates it’s own power is a tyrannical state and no longer a Republic of We The People.

Specifically speaking if I personally opened fire within the city limits I would be held accountable in Arizona for discharging a firearm in the city and I would probably be subsequently visited by the police, beaten by the police, tasered by the police and taken downtown until they firuted out what to do with me. I ask though, how am I supposed to act as a citizen who is uninformed by my government of such training missions? What am I to do if I believe I am being fired upon – am I allowed to return fire in defense?

I don’t know about you but I don’t want to live in a world where there are armed people, regardless of whether it is an American soldier or a Jihadist soldier, flying around in the sky. This is not the sign of a free land but rather an occupied land.

I am sending off letters to all politicians to see if they know what is going on and to try to get some answers. Below is a copy of my letter that I am sending. Feel free to copy, adjust, and send off to your state and federal politicians.

Mr. <NAME>:

SUBJECT: MILITARY LIVE FIRE WITHIN CITY LIMITS

There has been some indication in the news that certain cities across the United States are experiencing live-fire military drills over American cities recently, some of which are conducting live-fire drills. I know this has happened in Miami, Florida, and Houston, Texas. This naturally causes concern and confusion to me, especially if the drill is unbeknownst to me. If I discharged a firearm within the city limits I would be tried under ARS § 13-3107 entitled, “Unlawful discharge of firearms; exceptions; classification; definitions.”

I would like to know the following:

Why are live-fire drills being performed over cities by the United States military?

What will you do to ensure that this does not happen and if it is going to happen that the public is properly notified?

What would be the lawful outcome if a citizen opened return fire in defense of such a drill?

Sincerely,

God help us if we ever have real troops acting against it’s own citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II said, “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND’S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT’S A NO BRAINER!
DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It’s time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us. You’re not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people

[DISCLAIMER: This is based on the “facts” about the situation being currently reported. These “facts” are fluid, and would affect the following analysis.]

One: He’s guilty of three counts of theft. (Assuming mom didn’t lend him the two pistols and rifle.)

Two: He’s guilty of three counts of possessing a weapon on school grounds.

Three: He’s guilty of two counts of criminal possession of a pistol or revolver. (Assuming he was “convicted as delinquent for the commission of a serious juvenile offense,” which is a logical assumption based upon reports that he had a “checkered past” and had been a “troubled youth for most of his life.”)

Four: He’s guilty of two counts of illegal possession of handguns. (Concealed-carry permits aren’t granted to anyone in Connecticut under the age of 21.)

So that’s at least four laws, and with a total of 10 violations (counts). Note that I didn’t mention other laws he broke, including murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. Those “counts” would be nearly incalculable.

Laws (like those listed above) can only punish violations in retrospect – i.e., after the violation has occurred.

So, logically and unemotionally, my serious question is:

What additional gun laws would have PREVENTED this situation and other recent mass killings?

If “gun control” advocates hold their position that their goal is to PREVENT such situations, then logic dictates that the only law that would meet their objective would be very easy to draft:

“No person, citizen or non-citizen, living within the United States may own or possess any firearm.”

Imagine the governmental (police state) powers that would be required to enforce such a law. No longer would we be simply talking about the Second Amendment. There would be multiple parts of the Constitution that would need to be discarded.

As long as the goal is prevention, the real agenda of those advocating strict gun control legislation must be the collection and destruction of all firearms. That would be the only way to PREVENT such incidents from occurring.

And my apologies to those who may be offended due to the timeliness of this post. I’m not without sympathy. It’s simply the analytic and logical part of my nature to move to such a discussion quickly.

Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain